"And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod...and as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through the window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart...and Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel today, who uncovered himself in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself" (2 Samuel 6:14, 16, 20, KJV)
In this passage, king David is described as wearing a linen robe or ephod during a temple ritual involving the Ark of the Covenant, when he suddenly loses it and starts dancing raucously.
He is so overjoyed and caught up in the ecstasy of the moment that his retinue get more than I'm sure they'd bargained for originally: he actually exposes himself in the middle of the sacred dance, whilst he is 'leaping' and gyrating around, letting it 'all hang loose', so to speak - much to the revulsion of his wife Michal, who regards his conduct as both unseemly and uncouth for a monarch.
Biblical translators and commentators have had a field day for millennia over how to properly render these verses. Here's a sampling of the variations on Michal's reproach of her husband for his (accidental?) striptease:
"as he stripped himself in the sight of his maidservants as a common rake exposes himself" (The Bible: An American Translation).
"exposing himself before women...as any loose fellow would expose himself indecently" (A New Translation of the Bible, Moffatt)
"that exposed his person to man and maid...graceless as a common montebank" (The Holy Bible, Knox).
"uncovering himself...to be ogled by the female servants...as some worthless fellow would strip himself" (The Modern Language Bible, Berkeley)
"who let himself be seen uncovered by his servant girls" (The Bible in Basic English)
The Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, the traditional bible translation of the Catholic Church, states plainly that David was nudatus (naked). Likewise, the word for his 'dancing' or 'hopping' around is saltare /saltatio which is indicative of a "salacious, sensational movement quality" (Miller, 2000; Gruber, 1990) in which the good king, "[engaged] in more of a prance or jig rather than a dignified professional fit for a king...[He] momentarily lifted his robes and, in turn, exposed his nether regions" (Smith, 1995; Juriansz, 2013)."exposing himself before women...as any loose fellow would expose himself indecently" (A New Translation of the Bible, Moffatt)
"that exposed his person to man and maid...graceless as a common montebank" (The Holy Bible, Knox).
"uncovering himself...to be ogled by the female servants...as some worthless fellow would strip himself" (The Modern Language Bible, Berkeley)
"who let himself be seen uncovered by his servant girls" (The Bible in Basic English)
In the fourth century, the early church father St. Ambrose of Milan (died 397 CE) explained:
St. Ambrose of Milan, Letters (1881). pp. 324-354. Letters 51-60.
"But we also find praiseworthy bodily dancing in honor of God, for David danced before the Ark of the Lord. The things which viewed corporeally are unseemly, when viewed in regard to holy religion become venerable, so that they who blame such things will involve their own souls in the net of blame.
Thus Michal, however, the daughter of Saul, saw him dancing and beating a drum and reproves David for his dancing saying, "How is it honorable for the king of Israel to dance naked today in the presence of his maidservants?" And David answered Michal in the presence of the Lord: "Blessed be the Lord...I will make merry in the presence of the Lord and run naked, and I will be lighthearted in your presence, and I will be honored by the maids with whom you called me naked"...
David therefore did not shrink from censure, nor was he ashamed to hear their reproaches for his religious service. Thus, this is a clear lesson that the prophet who beats a drum and dances before the Lord is justified, whereas the one who reproves him is condemned...
The dancing [saltationem] which David practised before the Ark of the Covenant is commended. For everything that is seemly is done for religion, such that we need not be ashamed of a service that tends to the worship and honoring of Christ...
But perhaps it may be said, Was it not then disgraceful for a man to walk wholly uncovered through the people, seeing that he must be met both by men and women? Must not the sight itself have shocked the eyes of all, especially of women? Do not we ourselves generally shrink from looking upon naked men? And are not men's persons concealed by garments that they may not offend the eyes of beholders by an unseemly spectacle?
But what if there was nothing worthy of reproach in the prophet's body? He indeed alluded not to corporeal but to spiritual things; for in his ecstasy of mind he says, not I will hearken what I shall say, but, what the Lord God shall say in me. Nor does he consider whether he is naked or clothed. Again, Adam before his sin was naked, but knew not he was naked, because he was endued with virtue; after he had committed sin he saw that he was naked, and covered himself. Noah was uncovered, but he blushed not, because he was full of gladness and spiritual joy, while he who derided him for being naked, himself remained subject to the disgrace of perpetual baseness. Joseph too, that he might not be basely uncovered, left his garment, and fled away naked; now which of the two was base in this instance, she who kept another's garment, or he who put off his own?"
[Letter LVIII, To Sabinus, Bishop]
Thus Michal, however, the daughter of Saul, saw him dancing and beating a drum and reproves David for his dancing saying, "How is it honorable for the king of Israel to dance naked today in the presence of his maidservants?" And David answered Michal in the presence of the Lord: "Blessed be the Lord...I will make merry in the presence of the Lord and run naked, and I will be lighthearted in your presence, and I will be honored by the maids with whom you called me naked"...
David therefore did not shrink from censure, nor was he ashamed to hear their reproaches for his religious service. Thus, this is a clear lesson that the prophet who beats a drum and dances before the Lord is justified, whereas the one who reproves him is condemned...
The dancing [saltationem] which David practised before the Ark of the Covenant is commended. For everything that is seemly is done for religion, such that we need not be ashamed of a service that tends to the worship and honoring of Christ...
But perhaps it may be said, Was it not then disgraceful for a man to walk wholly uncovered through the people, seeing that he must be met both by men and women? Must not the sight itself have shocked the eyes of all, especially of women? Do not we ourselves generally shrink from looking upon naked men? And are not men's persons concealed by garments that they may not offend the eyes of beholders by an unseemly spectacle?
But what if there was nothing worthy of reproach in the prophet's body? He indeed alluded not to corporeal but to spiritual things; for in his ecstasy of mind he says, not I will hearken what I shall say, but, what the Lord God shall say in me. Nor does he consider whether he is naked or clothed. Again, Adam before his sin was naked, but knew not he was naked, because he was endued with virtue; after he had committed sin he saw that he was naked, and covered himself. Noah was uncovered, but he blushed not, because he was full of gladness and spiritual joy, while he who derided him for being naked, himself remained subject to the disgrace of perpetual baseness. Joseph too, that he might not be basely uncovered, left his garment, and fled away naked; now which of the two was base in this instance, she who kept another's garment, or he who put off his own?"
[Letter LVIII, To Sabinus, Bishop]
Which is to say, in other words, that nude dancing for 'God' could technically be acceptable behaviour and nothing to be ashamed of given the right spiritual intent and state of mind, even as the same church fathers often waxed lyrical about the "obscene gesticulations" of Greco-Roman pantomime artists and athletes who exposed themselves in the buff as part and parcel of the spectacle of their professions.
St. Gregory Nazianzus (365 CE) even went so far as to laud David's dancing as "that swift course of revolution manifold ordained by God [...] a dance to the honor of God, worthy of an Emperor and a Christian", which was his actual advice to the Roman Emperor Julian. "Perform the dances of King David before the ark".
Thus, St. Ambrose and most of his fellow church fathers (Augustine, Tertullian, Procopius) defended David's conduct and took the side of - most uncharacteristically for them, I have to admit - nude sacred dancing for the 'right reasons' as opposed to 'lascivious displays'.
Rabbi Abba b. Kahana (c.275), a Jewish amora or scholar whose aggadic teachings were codified as part of the Gemara, on the other hand portrayed David's dance as a "very sexual kind" of entertainment or spectacle and actually sided with Michal in reproaching David for dancing in such a way (Bemidbar IV.20 (Numbers) in The Midrash vol.5). A number of other Rabbis - and again in contrast to the Patristics who took it at face value to mean David exposed himself - conducted parallel exegesis on this passage using a similar account in 1 Chronicles, in an effort to reduce the dance to a mere: "he turned the front of his foot" and thereby explain away David's nudity as: "he stood on tiptoe, revealing his naked toes".
Needless to say, these verses have proven very controversial for those religious (Christians and Jews) who regard it as divinely inspired. A number of contemporary Evangelicals have in like manner sought to downplay or elide the sensual connotations and exposure of King David ("toes, alright? Its toes! Nothing more"), as the passage can embarrass and scandalise people.
Right, so what is your own religious perspective on nude and possibly sensual dancing? Can it ever be 'holy' or is it always, by default, to be reproached in all contexts? Are you with David or Michal on this?
Last edited:
